Muslims comment on Olypmic timing

[Hellsmk2]

So the IHRC is PEOPLE and that kind of implies more than one muslim
The plural for muslim is MUSLIMS .....
If it was inferring all muslims it would have said ALL MUSLIMS.....

Your average Daily Mail reader does not make that distinction. The S on the end quite clearly suggests more than one to the majority of people.

Surely by gathering more thna one viewpoint they are not being sensationalist then lol.
How do you know that they specifically went out to find a dissenting muslim? Perhaps they are simply reporting a complaint as it was made. Why are you trying to sensationalise it with your lies lol.

The Daily Mail has always had a right wing slant. There is a reason they are considered by far the most right wing of the major daily tabloids (and it is a tabloid however it tries to masquerade).

Well by trying to give a wide range of muslim opinion they are indeed being the very opposite of sensationalist.

Anyone who thinks they give a wide range of Muslim opinions needs to rethink how subjective their view is (i.e., not at all).

Yes some muslims, including Turkey (quite a few muslims there) want the Olympics moved..... how is that sensationalist

Because that "some" is a miniscule amount and not a news worthy story. The mail has made it a "newsworthy" story because angry/ complaining Muslims/ foreigners sell papers amongst its readership. It is a shrewd business move but completely inappropriate and only helping to fan racial hatred amongst Muslims and non- Muslims. It's quite simple really and something that the Mail are renowned for.

After your diatribe accusing the Mail and its readers of being Nazi sympathisers you are getting upset about my feelings towards your posts worth? Aren't you rather sensationalist lol.

The Mail were Nazi sympathisers. It's famously documented and still well documented as the most far right national paper. I don't see anyone accusing its readers of being Nazi sympathisers though. I'd say their readers need a better education and you can quote/ flame me on that if you want

You can criticise but can't take any? How very islamic of you.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Err because there is no hatred in the article.
Because it is not sensationalist as it gives a wide range of muslim viewpoint.
How is it inciting racial hatred? Is Islam a race now?
How dare you claim that Daily Mail readers are susceptible, if there is any brainwashing of susceptible people going on it is by Islam on susceptible children to grow up believeing this dross.

Daily Mail readers are very susceptible. How else do you think the utter drivel they print sells so well? The readers generally believe what ever narrow minded rubbish they print. It's what the Mail relies on to survive.

It does not give a wide viewpoint at all. They are very unbalanced and biased. They'll print 95% of an article dedicated to slating whatever it is they're on a moral crusade about and the other 5% with one or two comments from the opposite side of the fence to give the article a sense of credibility. For those with any sense, it is quite easy to see through this technique they've always adopted.

Ooooh maybe to catch the readers eye and then challenge him with a range of views from which to form a balanced opinion?
What would your preferrd headline have been?
IHRC and Turkey want Olympic date moved so as to not clash with Ramadam.
Hmmm doesn't seem snippy enough to me for a headline.

What should the headline have been? It should never have even been a headline in the first place. There are a million other things happening in the world that deserve more coverage, even other stories about Muslims and Islam, but they don't have the same "hook" that these sorts of stories have: i.e., the average Mail reader wouldn't have something to become completely incensed and enraged about. If you want a replacement headline, then look towards the likes of The Times, The Observer, The Guardian, etc for what a headline with an ounce of journalistic integrity should look like.

The Mail is the worst kind of newspaper. It tries to masquerade as a broadsheet when it is in fact a tabloid piece of pap. At least the other tabloids don't try that.


Mail reader’s love feeling self righteous and having some excuse to talk about how the country is going down the pan. They love to have scapegoats. They love to be angry and opinionated. They just don't care what about and the Mail knows how to play its readership.

A dead cat gives a more informed and rounded opinion than the Mail ever could... ever.

 

[Chronos-X]

A dead cat gives a more informed and rounded opinion than the Mail ever could... ever.

I feel strangely compelled to do it !

 

[Efour]

EVERYONE knows the history with the daily mail and the famous Lord "douchebag" and his writings supporting the black shirts.

People dont forget nonsense like that.

 

[VIRII]

Well since i'm the only one who has mentioned and used the phrase 'Inciting religious hatred'... and you said: 'Well my opinion is that there are quite a few wound up muslims here ranting about inciting religious hatred and Nazis etc......'
Thats clearly a reference in part to me.

But you are NOT the only one Indeed it wasn't you who mentioned the Nazis either.....

Why not? The phrase 'Cows eat grass' means all cows eat grass. You would certainly assume that i meant the vast majority of cows would you not?
'Cows eat grass' certainly does not mean or imply that a minority of cows eat grass, to suggest it does is ridiculous and shows a poor understanding of the english language.

So you'd use a value judgement to determine how many cows it was likely to apply to? But you can't do that with headlines..... way to go to blow your own argument to pieces.
What about cats eat mice. But not all cats eat mice. It is a preconception that they all eat mice, it is however wrong. I'd reckon that more cats do not eat mice than do eat mice. Once again a value judgement is required and as we all know that no-one speaks for all muslims it is quite clear that the headline can not mean all muslims ....

Are you saying all mail readers have finally learnt that the headlines they read are mostly bs?

LOL. I thought that not using a value judgement to determine the quantifier showed a poor grasp of english..... so which is it now ....
Are you finally saying that you understand the lack of a quantifier doesn't automatically mean "all" .......

If so, why are there such a large number of people in this thread
who read that headline to mean the majority or all of muslims, and this caused many of them to make unwelcome comments towards muslims as a whole. This proves that that headline is not read as meaning a minority of muslims by most readers.

I wouldn't like to GUESS. I would wonder though why you asked someone how they felt about it "as a muslim" ...... presumeably because muslims might take offence at the drop of a hat ....?
Incientally what is a "large number of people" in this thread? 3? 4? is that a large number? Does that prove something? I don't think it proves anything personally. Do the large numbers of Mail readers prove that their world view is correct then?

1: That headline does not mean the minority of muslims, by the rules of the english language.

It can mean some, a few, all or anything because of the rules of the English language and the pre requisite for people to engage their brains when throwing in the missing quantifier. It doesn't quantify the number hence it is not committing ot the number, any assumptions to the number referred to are assumptins, nothing more.
Still show me the rule please

2: The people who read that headline do not all realise that it means a small minority of muslims, as you said yourself: 'The difference being that some of us think and some of us jump to crazy assumptions probably as a result of altitude sickness from the dizzying heights of their moral high horses ....'

So unless everyone interprets that headline in a specific way, going against the rules of the english language, the mail is inciting religious hatred.

What rule? Show me it. Sounds like you are making up "rules" as you go along.
Earlier you seemed to feel some common sense was required in the cow example. Now you seem to feel it isn't.
I think "unless everyone interprets it the same way it is inciting religious hatred" comes under the catagory of "clutching at straws"

Absolutely. Its the mail, not the muslims, thats causing the problem.

How is it causing a problem? You've got so much to explain
It seems to me that the problem are uppity people desperate to find offence in anything the mail prints....

 

[WushuMaster]

snip...

What he said.

Just like to bring up a point I made in another thread again which is once more that we should know by now that the media print what they want to print for their own reasons. We only need to look at the amount of rubbish they come up with on celebrities to know that they don't print things because of their accurate, verifiable content or even social importance for that matter.

Like I said before, because of this climate of Islamaphobia which is spread principally by the media we need to examine our roles in all of this. I believe that Non-muslims have a responsibility to at least reserve judgement on matters involving Islam. Take it from me, it is not demonstrated in the media in its proper form at all and given the sheer amount of reports on things that involve muslims no matter what it is we need to just be cautious about what is presented. Muslims have a responsibility to do more to show how they are able to (as they have done in the past) to co-exist with non-muslims. It is possible, we just need to respond to the one sided claims that it isn't and show that it is.

It is only through knowledge and understanding that we can see the truth.

 

[VIRII]

Oh bless him laddy, I'm sure he'll grow out of it someday!

Or alternatively he could offer some evidence.
Or can I say (I think) that Aif has said that he loves Bin Laden, in the physical sense, a few times ?

 

[VIRII]

You must be blind.

Edit: I'm joining the daily mail sig club for a while.

Oh please do, the irony is obviously lost on you. CBS will be delighted lol.

 

[alexakasloth]

What rule? Show me it.

I always thought putting the letter 's' after a word made it a plural, meaning more than one, not all. An example being 'there are some muslims in the Islamic Human Rights Commission.'

 

[@if ®afiq]

What the sort of attitude that dares to question a muslim?
I didn't think you were man enough to offer an apology, but I guess now I know that you aren't.

lol...you make me laugh.

I'm talking about your agressive attitude - nothing to do with questioning Muslims. I've never been one to shy away from a debate about my religion, but when you make comments such as "or is apologising not something you can do?" then I don't feel obliged to respond.

 

[VIRII]

Your average Daily Mail reader does not make that distinction. The S on the end quite clearly suggests more than one to the majority of people.

How can you generalise about a group of people and then moan about people generalising about a group of people? Hypocrisy is delightful.
More than ONE muslims has complained. Fact or fiction? It's a fact.... so what is the problem?

The Daily Mail has always had a right wing slant. There is a reason they are considered by far the most right wing of the major daily tabloids (and it is a tabloid however it tries to masquerade).

So what? We are discussing the article on its own merits. Or is prejudice now OK?

Anyone who thinks they give a wide range of Muslim opinions needs to rethink how subjective their view is (i.e., not at all).

What view did they offer in the article? None at all. Simply quoted various muslims with differing views on ramadan and the need or lack of need to fast.
So you are criticisng them for offering an opinion when they did not actually offer an opinion? Genius.

Because that "some" is a miniscule amount and not a news worthy story. The mail has made it a "newsworthy" story because angry/ complaining Muslims/ foreigners sell papers amongst its readership. It is a shrewd business move but completely inappropriate and only helping to fan racial hatred amongst Muslims and non- Muslims. It's quite simple really and something that the Mail are renowned for.

Why is it a non story? We are holding the olympics for the first time in living memory, when did it last come here? The choice of dates is being criticised because of a clash with a religious festival. Why is that a non story? How is it helping to fan the flames? Surely the people fanning the flames are those making a fuss over the dates?

The Mail were Nazi sympathisers. It's famously documented and still well documented as the most far right national paper. I don't see anyone accusing its readers of being Nazi sympathisers though. I'd say their readers need a better education and you can quote/ flame me on that if you want

Islam (some muslims )were Nazi sympathisers. Did you know they had their own regiments in the Nazi army? Seems you might need a wider education
Oh and why the PAST tense i.e. the Mail WERE nazi sympathisers ..... so they aren't now?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I take plenty of criticism, I'm not suggesting others can not offer their views though am I Perhaps you can quantify with an example or two .....

Daily Mail readers are very susceptible. How else do you think the utter drivel they print sells so well? The readers generally believe what ever narrow minded rubbish they print. It's what the Mail relies on to survive.

Bwahahahahahahahaa. Prove that Daily Mail readers are VERY susceptible and that Muslims aren't ..... I see religious people believeing whatever narrow minded rubbish they are told to believe.....it is what Islam and religion in general relies on to survive. You may not question God, You must have more faith etc, etc.
Speaking of drivel - have you read the blatant prejudicial garbage you've posted?

It does not give a wide viewpoint at all. They are very unbalanced and biased. They'll print 95% of an article dedicated to slating whatever it is they're on a moral crusade about and the other 5% with one or two comments from the opposite side of the fence to give the article a sense of credibility. For those with any sense, it is quite easy to see through this technique they've always adopted.

That's a blatant lie.
In relation to the article in question prove your garbage above. 95% of the article must therefore be dedicated to showing how Islam is compalining about the Olympics and ramadan and demanding change. It seems that 95% of it is saying how perfectly feasible it is that muslims can compete, don't need to fast and how the dates couldn't really be changed.
How could the viewpoint be wider than those who say "this is a big problem" all the way through to those who say "it won't be an issue".
Well how could there be a wider range of views?

What should the headline have been? It should never have even been a headline in the first place.

Why not? People clearly find it interesting.

There are a million other things happening in the world that deserve more coverage, even other stories about Muslims and Islam, but they don't have the same "hook" that these sorts of stories have: i.e., the average Mail reader wouldn't have something to become completely incensed and enraged about.

How does the article leave anyone incensed? Seems to suggest that whilst a group have complained that there is no real problem for the athletes to me.
As for the "hook" it is about the London Olympics - that we are hosting - seems like a good reason to publish a story to me.

If you want a replacement headline, then look towards the likes of The Times, The Observer, The Guardian, etc for what a headline with an ounce of journalistic integrity should look like.

Sorry? Did you say THE GUARDIAN. Rofl. you utter hypocrite.

The Guardian is the worst kind of newspaper. It tries to masquerade as a broadsheet when it is in fact a tabloid piece of pap. At least the other tabloids don't try that.

Fixed.

 

[VIRII]

Mail reader’s love feeling self righteous . They love to have scapegoats. They love to be angry and opinionated.
A dead cat gives a more informed and rounded opinion than the Mail ever could... ever.

pot.kettle.black.

rofl

 

[VIRII]

lol...you make me laugh.

I'm talking about your agressive attitude - nothing to do with questioning Muslims. I've never been one to shy away from a debate about my religion, but when you make comments such as "or is apologising not something you can do?" then I don't feel obliged to respond.

Ah well I guess chucking baseless accusations around about people is not aggressive then......

 

[VIRII]

I always thought putting the letter 's' after a word made it a plural, meaning more than one, not all. An example being 'there are some muslims in the Islamic Human Rights Commission.'

Plural = more than one it does not = all.

 

[VIRII]

EVERYONE knows the history with the daily mail and the famous Lord "douchebag" and his writings supporting the black shirts.

People dont forget nonsense like that.

I don't.

 

[VIRII]

What he said.

Just like to bring up a point I made in another thread again which is once more that we should know by now that the media print what they want to print for their own reasons. We only need to look at the amount of rubbish they come up with on celebrities to know that they don't print things because of their accurate, verifiable content or even social importance for that matter.

Like I said before, because of this climate of Islamaphobia which is spread principally by the media we need to examine our roles in all of this. I believe that Non-muslims have a responsibility to at least reserve judgement on matters involving Islam. Take it from me, it is not demonstrated in the media in its proper form at all and given the sheer amount of reports on things that involve muslims no matter what it is we need to just be cautious about what is presented. Muslims have a responsibility to do more to show how they are able to (as they have done in the past) to co-exist with non-muslims. It is possible, we just need to respond to the one sided claims that it isn't and show that it is.

It is only through knowledge and understanding that we can see the truth.

And if these articles are not reported a large portion of knowledge is going to be missing isn't it. So what truth is going to be left....

 

[kinetic747]

Yeah, this can be seriously tricky especialy for endurance athletes. Could be a health risk unless they get proper food...

May even give our guys an outside chance of a medal.

 

[Efour]

I don't.

Forget or know ?


*yawn* i reckon you are on a sponsored post count session on this thread.

 

[@if ®afiq]

May even give our guys an outside chance of a medal.

Maybe that was the plan - damn those infidels.

 

[WushuMaster]

And if these articles are not reported a large portion of knowledge is going to be missing isn't it. So what truth is going to be left....

Thats a fair point and I do not disagree with that. The problem is the subtle insinuations and suggestions that do not represent the issue in its true light. If everyone was to sit and discuss every article and nitpick through them then okay fine, but the reality is that people will read something and without thinking about it, associate entire groups of people with the minority among them. So I don't have a problem with publishing the article, but i do question the importance that is attached to it.

 

[VIRII]

Forget or know ?


*yawn* i reckon you are on a sponsored post count session on this thread.

Seriously I don't recall what you refer to. Old age / senility perhaps.
A sponsored post count would have me making short posts wouldn't it?